Is faith a condition to obtaining salvation?

Give me just one example where scripture says we cannot be saved by "good deeds". I suspect that I will be able to demonstrate, in each case, that the writer is really saying that one cannot be saved by doing the mandates of Torah - the Law of Moses. But let's see. Please post any scripture you like that you believe denies salvation by good deeds - and therefore has Paul taking the very odd approach of saying that this is indeed the case in Romans 2, and then later denying it.

Be careful not to read the word "works" and simply assume that "works" = "good deeds". The context shows what the works really are - they are the prescriptions of Torah, not the more general category of "good works".

 

Ephesians 2:8-9 is the most popular.

 

Good example. If one is fair and opens one mind to the possibilility that Paul is talking about Torah when refers to works in this text, we see that the material that follows really can only make sense if Torah is indeed what Paul is talking about. Look at what Paul goes on to say in this "therefore" block:

11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

{***Clearly Paul uis talking about something that separates Jew and Gentile. This is clearly Torah}

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

Again, in verse 15, we have clear reference to the Torah.

What Paul says here makes it clear that in verses 8 and 9, he is re-assuring the Gentile reader - who would feel excluded from 'citizenship in Israel' that this is not case? Why? Because we are not saved by works of Torah - the ethnic charter of the Jews.

The "therefore" text makes no sense if we see "works" as "good deeds" in general, not least because there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in this respect - all are sinful as per Romans 3.

Paul must mean "works of Torah" in verses 8 and 9 for the "therefore" to be the explanation it obviously is.

 

Regardless, salvation is the whole of "by grace are you saved through faith" and not of works (Torah, good works, good deeds, whatever). This passage makes it perfectly clear "good deeds" are not needed for salvation.

 

But this places you in the difficult position of saying that Paul is describing a judgement in Romans 2 that will not take place for those that are in Christ. I cannot see anything in this passage at all that would give us reason to think that Paul believes that zero persons will be justified by their good works as he says no less than three times.

Would you write an account of a coming judgment, state three times that some will be justified by their good deeds, and intend the reader to understand that later in the same letter you are going to undermine what you just wrote by saying the very thing you describe in Romans 2 - justification by works - is purely hypothetical?

I submit that no normal person would do this. And one needs to remember that Paul is a highly articulate well-educated Pharisee.

This is what you have to believe if you think that zero persons are going to be justified by their good works as in Romans 2. You have to believe that Paul underscores three times the granting of eternal life based on good works, all the while believing that zero persons will get eternal life that way. And never giving even the slightest hint that he is describing a path to eternal life that none will take.

I just cannot believe that. I think he means what he says - eternal life will be granted based on the good deeds people have manifested. And, strangely enough, this is entirely consistent with a full and robust belief in the notion of justification by faith. I have addressed how these 2 work together in other threads and will not get into that in this post.

 

No it does not. It says that works of Torah are not needed for salvation. You seem to think that it doesn't matter whether Paul is denying salvation by good deeds or whether he is denying salvation by doing Torah. It does matter - if he is denying salvation by Torah, then the possibility that ultimate justification will be on the entirely different category of "good deeds" remains open. And this is not surprising since in Romans 2 he clearly states that there will be some who will be justified by the good works that their lives manifest:

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

And, despite appearances, this is entirely consistent with the notion that we are saved by grace. People cannot (or will not) accept the model of justification we get from Paul. It is, as I see it, basically this: through grace and grace alone, God gives the Holy Spirit to those who place faith in Jesus. And it is the Spirit that acts in the life of the life of the believer to produce the works that will justify that person at the Romans 2 judgement.

How do you reconcile your position with what is said in verses like Romans 2:7, above? Do you think that Paul (in Romans 2) is describing a theoretical path to justification that none will take? If so, how do defend such a position - a strange one indeed since in Romans 2 Paul seems entirely serious when he describes the judgement - there is no indication that he is talking hypothetically.

One of the themes that I think people miss is that in the book of Romans, Paul is trying to get the Gentile and Jewish factions of the church in Rome to get along. So he often has to tell the Gentiles "don't worry, you don't have to be a Jew to be in God's family. Why? Because you are saved by grace not by doing the works of Torah - the ethnic charter of the Jew"

 

Works are works whether they come from the Torah or not. So that point is moot. Paul often uses the works of the Torah to illustrate the point that you are trying to avoid. Take for example:

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Paul uses the works of the law, which the Israelites could not keep for an example. The question is: Could the nation of Israel obtain salvation by keeping the law (in application by doing good)?
Paul answers in order to do so it is written that if one should continue from birth to death in keeping every law, every hour of every day, and then just break one law (only sin one time in all of your life--one little white lie, entertain one bad thought), then you are cursed. You have failed.
But the truth is we sin every day. We have not broken the law just once or twice, but many times every day. We are cursed and cannot stand before a holy God. Remember this is written to believers at Galatia, not to Jews. They could not be saved by keeping the law or by doing good. It was impossible. There was only one answer.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
--Christ took away that curse for us. Where we fail to keep the law and do good continually, Christ became a curse for us and died for our sins.

God has put His moral law within the heart of every man--all the Gentiles (Romans 2:14,15), so that all the world has a knowledge of the Ten Commandments.
Then it tells us in James:

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
--Whether you lie or commit murder, it is all the same in God's sight.
If you offend in one point you are just as guilty as breaking all the law.

The law had two types: apodictic and cauistic.
1. Apodictic law was law that had no penalty. It was stated because that law was an absolute true in and of itself.
For example:
--Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
--Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, and mind.

There are no penalties for those type of laws. They fall into the category also of doing good. But do you keep these laws, as Gal.3:10 commands you to all the time, all of your life, never breaking them? Are you never angry with your brother or neighbor?--a transgression of loving your neighbor, and even fitting the definition of murder.

Causitic law has a penalty attached.
If one, under the Jewish law would steal from his neighbor, he would restore four-fold. That's an example of causuistic law.

By doing good, keeping the law, it is impossible to get to heaven.
One cannot get to heaven by either keeping the Ten Commandments or simply by doing good works. Their trust must be in Christ and in his finished work alone.

 

No. It does matter whether Paul is referring to works in the sense of "good deeds" as contrasted with "works of Torah".

People can get tripped on this because they think that because Torah contains prescriptions for the performing of good deeds, this puts it in the same category as the more general term "good deeds". And so they conclude that the distinction is not important.

I will now show that to deny justification by doing the works of Torah does not close the door on the possibility of being justified by doing "good deeds". And that's a big relief, because Paul clearly asserts justification by good deeds in Romans 2:6-15.

Here is the argument someone might make against my position:

1. Assume that Paul denies justification by doing Torah and does not deny justification by doing "good works" (this is Andre's position);

2. We know that Torah contains prescriptions about "good works";

3. Therefore to deny justification by Torah also denies justification by "good works"

4. Therefore the position set forth by Andre cannot be sustained because it is self-contradictory

This argument is invalid as can be seen by its application in another context;

1. Assume that Paul denies justification by following the Boy Scout code and does not deny justification by doing "good works";

2. We know that Boy Scout code contains prescriptions about "good works";

3. Therefore to deny justification by doing the Boy Scout code also denies justification by "good works"

4. Therefore. to deny justification by following the Boy Scout code implies denial of justification by doing "good works"

Do I really need to explain what is wrong with this kind of argument? The problem is that to follow the Boy Scout code entails doing all the weird "non good works" stuff - wearing the funny hat, doing the funny salutes, doing the secret handshakes, etc. So if someone denies "justification by following the Boy Scout code", they are not necessarily denying justification by doing good works - they are denying justification to those who do all the stuff in the code.

Or put another way, imagine that someone made this kind of argument in a context where to graduate from Harvard, you need to get a score of > 80 % on a national exam (which could indeed be case):

1. I deny that being a Harvard graduate is the criteria for being hired by Law firm X;

2. Being a Harvard graduate entails scoring more than 80 % on the national exam;

3. Therefore to deny that graduating Harvard is the basis for being hired by Law firm X also means you are also denying that scoring 80 % is the criteria for being hired by Law firm X.

This is simply invalid reasoning. And substitute "doing Torah" for being a Harvard grad, and "good works" for scoring > 80 %, and "justification / salvation" for being hired by law firm X and you can see the problem.

One can perfectly coherently deny justification by Torah without necessarily denying justification by the more general category of "good works", even though Torah does indeed prescribe "good works".

 

In view of your above post Andre, show me from the Bible:
1. What good works a man must do to be justified.
2. How many good works a man must do to be justified.
3. When he will know he has done enough good works to be justified.
4. Who has set the standard of what those good works are, and are they the same for every person, and how are we to find out what they are.

 

1. I do not think the Bible tells us this, or if it does, I do not know the texts in question.

2. I do not think the Bible tells us this, or if it does, I do not know the texts in question.

3. This matter is settled at conversion - at the moment we place faith in Jesus. We do not need to know the answers to questions 1 and 2 - we only need to know that God has said "If you place faith in Jesus, you will meet the mark set in Romans 2". I would cite the following text as supporting this:

being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

I believe that the scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit, given to us at the point of conversion, ensures that we "pass".

4. God has set the standard, I do not know if they are the same for every person, and, as per my answer to question 3, we do not need to know what the standard is. That is the job of the Holy Spirit.

 

God has set the standard. We know what the standard is. It is absolute perfection. Be ye holy as I am holy.
Unless one can be absolutely holy and righteous in the sight of God, perfect in every way as he, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

When you stand be a perfectly righteous and holy God, and he asks you: Why should I let you into my heaven, what answer will you give?
If you answer "See my good works," your end result will be the Lake of Fire."
That is an insult to the sacrifice of Christ, the sin that he died and paid the price for. No amount of good works could ever atone for the sin that He Himself atoned for.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Quite evidently your good works, your righteousnesses don't mean anything to God. He will throw them out. They are useless filthy rags.
All that He will consider at that time is if you are clothed with the righteous of Jesus Christ or not. That is the only thing that God is concerned with at the time of your death--not your good works; but if you are clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. If He doesn't see the blood of Christ, He will pass over you.
The angel of death passed over the Israelites and gave them protection during the passover; but where there was no blood there was only death.
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Good works mean nothing. The blood of Christ is what saves. The blood of Christ is what keeps our salvation, not our works.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

 

I think others responded to this already.

If we could be saved by good deeds, then why does God tell us that "all have sinned and gone astray?"

And all men are condemned by their sin, therefore they can't be saved by good deeds or any other deeds.

 

This is not an easy issue. But Paul makes it clear - somehow people will be justified by the works that are manifested in their lives:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

How is it that we are not to take Paul seriously here?

I suspect that in the Isaiah text ("filthy rags"), the writer is speaking of works done from "moral self-effort". In Romans 2, Paul states clearly that indeed there will be those justified at the end by their works. Are these the works that arise from moral "self-effort"? I think that the answer is given to us in Romans 8:

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you

The mystery of Romans 2 is solved. God gives the Spirit and it is the Spirit that performs the works that will justify us at the end.

Again, people get tripped up when they read "works" in Paul and assume that Paul is talking about "good deeds". In the vast majority of cases, this is not so - he is talking about how doing the works of Torah is not salvific. Once that is cleared up, we get a unified story and we do not have to do backflips to deal with Romans 2.

 

Indeed - no man will be justified by Torah- the law. This is not the same thing as saying that no man will be justified by "good works".

My point is that you are forced into saying that no less than three times does Paul (in Romans 2) say "some will be justified by good deeds", and yet you seem to hold that he later says zero persons will be justified by their deeds.

Why am I the only one who thinks that is very odd. If Paul had indeed gone on to say (later in Romans) that it was impossible to be justified by works, then perhaps you might have an argument (although this still makes Paul a very odd writer - suggesting something that isn't true in Romans 2).

But Paul never denies that it is impossible to be justified by good works - he says it is impossible to be justified by works of Torah. And that is not the same thing.

 

HP: It would seem appropriate when one makes such a statement to back it up with Scripture. Where is the Scriptural evidence of your assertion?

 

HP: DHK and David, a man after God’s heart, certainly are at direct antipodes. David said, Ps 7:8 The LORD shall judge the people: judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me. Ps 18:24 Therefore hath the LORD recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight.